These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends

First post First post First post
Author
Combat Wombatz
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1841 - 2014-01-21 17:52:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Combat Wombatz
CCP SoniClover wrote:
1) The ISK adjustments are the same as before. Without an ESS you'll get 95% value, with an ESS you get 80% directly and 20-25% are accessible through the ESS.


Still not okay unless you hit hisec with an equal or greater income nerf at the same time.
Jessica Danikov
Network Danikov
#1842 - 2014-01-21 17:56:45 UTC
Biggest flaw is how this empowers hot-droppers. With an ESS, you no longer have to jump into a system and race to catch them in their sites- just sit on the ESS and threaten to take all their cash.

If they do nothing, you milk them dry.

If they try to fight you, you bridge in an overwhelming blops force and nuke them.

Cyno + ESS is not a good combination- I'll reiterate what I said pages ago, it needs a cyno-jamming field (and to be balanced against the existing cyno jammer deployable so it doesn't compete)
Xaerael Endiel
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1843 - 2014-01-21 17:57:56 UTC
This is a very good step towards the ESS being "good for all". The LP addition will sink isk out of circulation, while not significantly impacting negatively on a Nullsec ratter's income.

The changes made have turned the ESS from something I'd never touch with a 40' bargepole into something I'm at the very least curious in trying out, and at the most seriously hopeful that it changes the way nullsec ratting works for the good of all.

Thanks for listening, Team Superfriends.
Turelus
Utassi Security
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#1844 - 2014-01-21 17:58:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Turelus
TL;DR: Delay the ESS from 1.1 and make it something worthy of EVE Online, not another failed feature.

I would also say that CCP might want to think about not placing the ESS in 1.1

There are some really great ideas coming from the community and a better back and forth with CCP about this module now, with some more time, testing and feedback it could actually be a fantastic module.
I worry that if rushed out in 1.1 before people are happy with it we will just see it abandoned (like many features) while Super Friends are moved onto their next project for the summer expansion.

I understand things will never be perfect before they're deployed but a few more revisions and work on changes besides the base ESS module to help support it would make for a far better released feature (NullSec LP stores, Specific LP/Store Lists, Hacking games).

Make a thread in Features and Ideas and work with the community to create something worthy of EVE Online, not another feature which we're told will be finished/tweaked/fixed later and sits in a worthless state for over a year.

Once this thread turns from "still not worth using" to "OMG GOT TO HAVE" you know you're looking at something ready for release, you only have to look at the Hype for the Nestor vs the dread of this module and the changes it brings to see how one feature (which has had a thread up for a couple of months) is what players want vs the one which us only a couple of weeks old and people still don't want any where near TQ.

Turelus CEO Utassi Security

Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1845 - 2014-01-21 18:00:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
And when are you going to significantly increase the number of anomalies per system which desperately needs to be done?


They don't need to increase the number of anomalies, they need to make more than 3 (sanctum, haven, forsaken hub) of them worthwhile.

Sure, forlorn hubs, regular and forsaken rally points are ok if you have no choice but still much less than optimal. Half to two-thirds of anomalies in any given system are totally useless. You won't find a single soul in all of EVE online who will say "hey man, Hidden Hubs are GREAT" lol.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1846 - 2014-01-21 18:00:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Querns
e: someone on jabber pointed out that my query included wormhole space. Re-running the query to eliminate that space, it ends up actually being more on the order of 42% of nullsec being barren!

James Amril-Kesh wrote:
And when are you going to significantly increase the number of anomalies per system which desperately needs to be done?

This dovetails into something I'd been wanting to talk about -- the old change to anomaly distribution based on truesec. Now that the ESS exists as a way to arbitrarily tune the isk faucet being emitted from nullsec, I'd highly recommend that CCP revisit the changes to the Pirate Detection Array that choked off the top combat sites from vast swathes of nullsec.

Some background: in the Incursion 1.4 patch, Pirate Detection Arrays were changed so that a system's truesec affected how many combat sites would spawn. The net of this change was to choke off roughly 40% of conquerable nullsec from having any viable combat sites. Here are the raw numbers:

sqlite> select count(*) FROM mapSolarSystems a left join mapRegions b ON (a.regionID = b.regionID) WHERE a.security < 0.00 AND a.security > -0.25 AND b.factionID IS NULL AND b.regionName NOT LIKE "%-R%" AND b.regionName <> "UUA-F4";
1156
sqlite> select count(*) FROM mapSolarSystems a left join mapRegions b ON (a.regionID = b.regionID) WHERE a.security < 0.00 and b.factionID IS NULL AND b.regionName NOT LIKE "%-R%" AND b.regionName <> "UUA-F4";
2751

For those that don't grok sql: 1156 systems in conquerable nullsec have a security status between 0.00 and -0.25, compared to 2751 total. Systems in this band are unable to generate any Forsaken Hubs, which are the lowest tier site that generates a livable income in nullsec. This change, either intentionally or unintentionally, made 40% of nullsec a barren wasteland for line member income generation. Regions like Pure Blind, Providence, and Cloud Ring were hit disproportionately by these changes; in Pure Blind in particular there are only seven systems that can generate a Forsaken Hub at all and only one that can generate a Sanctum at all (and that system is EC-P8R; a system which is notoriously untenable for any sort of PvE on account of having a direct highsec connection, with all the pvp attention carried by such a distinction.)

Part of the effect of this change was a net reduction in the "isk faucet" coming from nullsec; not only was 40% of the space in the game no longer eligible for combat sites, but the total number of combat sites was drastically reduced. I think that now is a great time to revisit the scaling done by Pirate Detection Arrays to make lower-quality space a little more livable for its residents. I suspect a minor adjustment to allow these systems to generate at least one combat site would suffice. Any isk faucet concerns can be allayed by adjusting the scaling on the ESS such that it generates more LP than isk than the current desired balance.

I'm not suggesting that these changes be incorporated for Rubicon 1.1 or in fact any particular release at all, but I'd like to plant the bug in the relevant ears, at the very least, while we are on the topic of such an important change to nullsec profitability.

On another note, these calculations have a slight wrinkle in the Drone regions. Drone regions, for whatever reason, generate vastly larger numbers of combat sites. I don't have hard numbers in front of me, but anecdotal reference from my personal experience hunting ratters in these regions, along with the anecdotal evidence from my confederates in Goonswarm Federation doing similar things suggests that up to ten Drone Horde sites (the top tier combat site in these regions) can spawn at once, compared to a maximum of three Sanctums in other pirate faction regions. This incongruency may be worth visiting as well.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1847 - 2014-01-21 18:06:55 UTC
Jessica Danikov wrote:
Biggest flaw is how this empowers hot-droppers. With an ESS, you no longer have to jump into a system and race to catch them in their sites- just sit on the ESS and threaten to take all their cash.

If they do nothing, you milk them dry.

If they try to fight you, you bridge in an overwhelming blops force and nuke them.

Cyno + ESS is not a good combination- I'll reiterate what I said pages ago, it needs a cyno-jamming field (and to be balanced against the existing cyno jammer deployable so it doesn't compete)


if the ESS disabled ALL cynos (even covert) around it for 250km, you'd never hear me complain about the thing ever. But yea, as it stands now, it's just cyno/hotdrop bait. As has been said, it's just going to mean "hey, someone put a disposable alt on this sucker so we can rat without getting out isk stolen".
1Robert McNamara1
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1848 - 2014-01-21 18:10:45 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
if the ESS disabled ALL cynos (even covert) around it for 250km, you'd never hear me complain about the thing ever. But yea, as it stands now, it's just cyno/hotdrop bait. As has been said, it's just going to mean "hey, someone put a disposable alt on this sucker so we can rat without getting out isk stolen".



LOL the fleet application of this would be ********. bad idea.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1849 - 2014-01-21 18:11:22 UTC
Jessica Danikov wrote:
Biggest flaw is how this empowers hot-droppers. With an ESS, you no longer have to jump into a system and race to catch them in their sites- just sit on the ESS and threaten to take all their cash.

If they do nothing, you milk them dry.

If they try to fight you, you bridge in an overwhelming blops force and nuke them.

Cyno + ESS is not a good combination- I'll reiterate what I said pages ago, it needs a cyno-jamming field (and to be balanced against the existing cyno jammer deployable so it doesn't compete)


The point is to have you defend it if you want the bonus it provides. And the isk it holds makes it potentially valuable to you. In other words, it encourages you to fight without forcing you to fight. Something that a roaming gang coming through your territory has no means of doing at the moment.

Also, cyno jam your system, note names of hotdroppers... disable the hotdrop ship so it won't actually catch anything when they bridge in their fleeet, etc. This is actually a great game design, even if you are afraid of the possibilities.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#1850 - 2014-01-21 18:18:38 UTC
There has to be a more elegant solution for this. I'm not sure where it is but there has to be. The concept (meaning the device itself and how it runs is fine, anchor, creates a warp bubble, prizes inside), how it calculates its pot of gold is bizarre.

Is it the bounty and LP thats the problem? Or the loot drops/salvage?

What I mean is if you are going to create a device like this, make it more extreme. If this is meant for null, you might as well just go all out and force people to deal with it.

Right now its a deadspace early detection system, (incase you wound up missing the combat scanner probes), or a temporary griefing tool (which is fine but it should probably grief more).

Honestly, this is probably two different devices.

One being a Detection system, the second deployable a system isk/lp sucking system. Its odd being both but hell we can try it for now.

Yaay!!!!

Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#1851 - 2014-01-21 18:24:22 UTC
It now has some kind of megapoint on it because ~interceptors~ plus a proximity demand, and you guys want to add cynojamming too? Why not just make it plonk out an acceleration gate with cruiser limits and be done with it?
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1852 - 2014-01-21 18:25:25 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
There has to be a more elegant solution for this. I'm not sure where it is but there has to be. The concept (meaning the device itself and how it runs is fine, anchor, creates a warp bubble, prizes inside), how it calculates its pot of gold is bizarre.

Is it the bounty and LP thats the problem? Or the loot drops/salvage?

What I mean is if you are going to create a device like this, make it more extreme. If this is meant for null, you might as well just go all out and force people to deal with it.

Right now its a deadspace early detection system, (incase you wound up missing the combat scanner probes), or a temporary griefing tool (which is fine but it should probably grief more).

Honestly, this is probably two different devices.

One being a Detection system, the second deployable a system isk/lp sucking system. Its odd being both but hell we can try it for now.


Deadspace detection system? You mean you deploy it at a deadspace plex so anyone entering it is reported in local? That's a unique use of the device!

To limit inflaction, CCP needs to be careful with their isk faucets. This is why they are conservative with the isk payouts. LP is honestly an isk sink, so that can be a reward that isn't isk (and helps offset it).

Forcing people to deal with it is a pretty heavy handed approach that is likely to upset the balance of players in nullsec. By keeping it optional, and small gang oriented, it has utility without being overly harsh.
Tiberizzle
Your Mom Heavy Industries
#1853 - 2014-01-21 18:32:22 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Jessica Danikov wrote:
Biggest flaw is how this empowers hot-droppers. With an ESS, you no longer have to jump into a system and race to catch them in their sites- just sit on the ESS and threaten to take all their cash.

If they do nothing, you milk them dry.

If they try to fight you, you bridge in an overwhelming blops force and nuke them.

Cyno + ESS is not a good combination- I'll reiterate what I said pages ago, it needs a cyno-jamming field (and to be balanced against the existing cyno jammer deployable so it doesn't compete)


if the ESS disabled ALL cynos (even covert) around it for 250km, you'd never hear me complain about the thing ever. But yea, as it stands now, it's just cyno/hotdrop bait. As has been said, it's just going to mean "hey, someone put a disposable alt on this sucker so we can rat without getting out isk stolen".


the same people who sit cynos on hostile ESSes in hostile space will sit cynos on friendly ESSes in friendly space when they're at home, hot dropping has always been an inseparable part of the nullsec and lowsec risk vs reward equation.

whoever has the most organized and mobile force in the immediate area can opt to control the ESS to receive a reward.

what's wrong with that?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1854 - 2014-01-21 18:37:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Dalilus wrote:
I see nullsec is getting another buff, as expected. Any plans to unerf high-sec? Maybe add Concord LP per every rat killed?
“Another”? What other buffs are you referring to, and how was it expected that they decided to nerf income even more (because that's still what they're doing)? Also, when was highsec nerfed in such a way that it now needs “un-nerfing”?


CCP SoniClover wrote:
1) The ISK adjustments are the same as before. Without an ESS you'll get 95% value, with an ESS you get 80% directly and 20-25% are accessible through the ESS.

…and the question remains the same as before: why are you introducing this nerf to all of null when every statement from your side says that no such nerf is needed? Again, if it's there to give the ESS a reason to exist — to make it worth-while — all that means is that the ESS has no reason to exist and isn't worth-while to begin with, which means you should adjust the ESS, not arbitrarily punish every rank-and-file nullseccer. Even the previous miscommunication about it being risky to increase nullsec bounties is now completely nullified: the ESS is already self-compensating through the use of LP.

If you have to use such heavy-handed tactics to incentivise the use of your new design, it means your design is wrong.
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#1855 - 2014-01-21 18:40:46 UTC
Tahnil wrote:

Yeah, you're kinda fighting against windmills here.

First of all: don‘t you see that it‘s all the more seducing to use this module, the more nullsec alliances are trying to boycott it? Because if nobody BUT ME uses it, the better for me! Cause I‘m earning additional LP now, and you don‘t.

Second, the LP payout itself seems to be quite okay. Assuming a nullbear now earns 30m ISK for each hour ratting, after the change the following will happen:

NO ESS DEPLOYED
Direkt ISK income nerfed to 28.5m ISK.
No additional benefits or frills.

ESS DEPLOYED
Direkt ISK income lowered to 24m ISK.
Additional 3,600 to 4,800 LP directly to LP wallet.
6-7.5m ISK go into ESS.

Given current navy LP values (c. 800 ISK/LP) this sums up to c. 32.9m to 35.3m, depending on how long the ESS has been deployed and not cashed out. This is a potential buff of 9.7 to 17.7 percent to nullbear income.

But most important of all: this ratter will potentially earn 25% more than a ratter who doesn't deploy an ESS. That‘s kind of a motivation :D


This deployable is still a DOA feature that will not be used even with the changes. Not to mention that it still includes a BS nerf to ratting income that has been proven unnecessary repeatedly in this thread.

Let me see if I can make you understand. The PvE content in Eve is so f-ing horrible I can barely be assed to undock my carrier and grind a few sites per day. If you think i'm going to deploy this heap of crap and have to worry about defending it, and then at some point have to go through the pain that is converting LP to items to isk just to avoid losing 5% ratting income you have lost your mind.

James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Why have you maintained the 5% nerf to bounties even when it was demonstrated that it was unnecessary and that your reasons for doing so were utterly false?

Saying "we're going to take away 5% of your bounties to force you to use this new module" is not sandbox at all. It's not player-driven content. It's an artificially forced game mechanic.


This + 1000%. I shouldn't have to say this because i'm not the game designer/developer but if you have to implement a penalty to "force" me to use a module then THIS IS BAD DESIGN AND SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED.

Like seriously, if I was talking to staff at any store I spend money at I'd be asking to talk to a manager by now. What is the option to talk to a manager at CCP when staff are completely ignoring their customers.

The fact that dev time is spent on this garbage is beyond upsetting to me as a customer when HED shows that the core of game is fundamentally broken and badly needs to be fixed.

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1856 - 2014-01-21 18:44:46 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Why have you maintained the 5% nerf to bounties even when it was demonstrated that it was unnecessary and that your reasons for doing so were utterly false?

Saying "we're going to take away 5% of your bounties to force you to use this new module" is not sandbox at all. It's not player-driven content. It's an artificially forced game mechanic.


that is my question too...

is not the 20% risk enough?

perhaps a base increase in meta drops could help offset a drop in isk drops? i.e. if you want more isk you have to work for it

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Combat Wombatz
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1857 - 2014-01-21 18:45:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Combat Wombatz
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Why have you maintained the 5% nerf to bounties even when it was demonstrated that it was unnecessary and that your reasons for doing so were utterly false?

Saying "we're going to take away 5% of your bounties to force you to use this new module" is not sandbox at all. It's not player-driven content. It's an artificially forced game mechanic.


A thousand times this. The thought process behind the ESS seems dangerously close to Incarna-level foolishness.

Andrea Keuvo wrote:
This + 1000%. I shouldn't have to say this because i'm not the game designer/developer but if you have to implement a penalty to "force" me to use a module then THIS IS BAD DESIGN AND SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED.

Like seriously, if I was talking to staff at any store I spend money at I'd be asking to talk to a manager by now. What is the option to talk to a manager at CCP when staff are completely ignoring their customers.

The fact that dev time is spent on this garbage is beyond upsetting to me as a customer when HED shows that the core of game is fundamentally broken and badly needs to be fixed.


Someone give this man a medal.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1858 - 2014-01-21 18:48:44 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
And when are you going to significantly increase the number of anomalies per system which desperately needs to be done?


that or make high end annom like incursions.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1859 - 2014-01-21 18:53:02 UTC
Combat Wombatz wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Why have you maintained the 5% nerf to bounties even when it was demonstrated that it was unnecessary and that your reasons for doing so were utterly false?

Saying "we're going to take away 5% of your bounties to force you to use this new module" is not sandbox at all. It's not player-driven content. It's an artificially forced game mechanic.


A thousand times this. The thought process behind the ESS seems dangerously close to Incarna-level foolishness.


I was initially cheered up when i read about the new changes to the ESS this morning, but as the day went on I realized that the flawed thinking behind the whole thing hasn't changed at all. The ESS (and its accompanying 5% bounty nerf) is still most likely to push PVErs away from null towards activities that are in safer space and pays as much (incursions, l4 missions for the right corps) or better (FW, not that low sec is safer, but when making a few hundred mil worth of LP an hour while losing only a caracal or 2, who gives a damn about safe lol).

I fear this will be just another opportunity to tell CCP "I told you so" after the fact.
Regan Rotineque
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1860 - 2014-01-21 18:54:38 UTC
It is still overly complicated and adds zero to the overall gameplay. Now you are adding additional mechanics to this and making it even more complex. Adding more code to a broken mechanic does not make it better. I still say this should be shelved and other game mechanics in dire need of coding and reworking be worked on.